Decision-making Methodology of Optimal Shielding Materials by Using Fuzzy Linear Programming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main purpose of our studies are to select materials and determine the ratio of constituent materials as the first stage of optimum shielding design to suit the individual requirements of nuclear reactors, reprocessing facilities, casks for shipping spent fuel, etc. The parameters of the shield optimization are cost, space, weight and some shielding properties such as activation rates of individual irradiation and cooling time, and total dose rate for neutrons (including secondary gamma ray) and for primary gamma ray. Using conventional two-valued logic (i.e. crisp) approaches, huge combination calculations are needed to identify suitable materials for optimum shielding design. Also, re-computation is required for minor changes, as the approach does not react sensitively to the computation result. Present approach using a fuzzy linear programming method is much of the decisionmaking toward the satisfying solution might take place in fuzzy environment. And it can quickly and easily provide a guiding principle of optimal selection of shielding materials under the above-mentioned conditions. The possibility of reducing radiation effects by optimizing the ratio of constituent materials is investigated.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".